Summary Overview of Short-Term-Disability Benefits,

Long-Term-Disability Benefits and Co-Ordination with Other Benefits and Settlements Under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974

Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association

March 22, 2017

By Jonathan M. Feigenbaum

www.erisaattorneys.com

I.  Introduction to Short-Term-Disability Benefits and Long-Term Disability Benefits.

A.  The Broad Reach of ERISA.

In the early 1960s, the Studebaker automobile manufacturing company went bankrupt. Because Studebaker had failed to adequately fund its defined benefit pension plan, when the company went bankrupt the pension plan also collapsed, leaving many Studebaker retirees destitute, and its employees without their jobs or some their pensions. For the next decade, Congress drafted and redrafted legislation to address this problem. On Labor Day 1974, ERISA was signed into law. Originally drafted with pension plans in mind, over time ERISA has come to govern much more. Part of the concept behind ERISA was to create a uniform law for employee benefits and pensions nationwide. This was thought to protect employees and to make it more reasonable for employers that operated in many states. Rather than dealing with 50 different state laws, employers would be governed by one Federal law.

Many employers and unions offer short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits for employees who are injured or sick and must stop working. Only California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico provide for statutory short term disability coverage.

Private sector and public sector employers often offered STD and LTD benefits paid for by insurance premiums, or self-funded by employers. Both STD and LTD benefits will replace a portion of an employee’s pre-disability income; typically, 60% or 66 and 2/3% of the employee’s earnings. Some provide lesser coverage, a few provide more. When a union or private employer (but not a government employer or church plan, i.e., Archdiocese) provides benefits such as STD, LTD, health, life, etc. (all employee welfare benefits), the law controlling those benefits is the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA).

Why do employers love ERISA? Federal Court jurisdiction, discretion to the defendant fiduciary’s decision (even if wrong so long as it is reasonable), generally no discovery, requirement of pre-suit exhaustion, trial on a paper record, generally no witnesses, no damages, no punitive damages, no compensatory damages, equitable relief only, interest often at federal rates, and often the result is a “remand” or a “do-over” for the plan. ERISA creates virtually no incentive for insurers to pay disability benefits to disabled employees as there exists almost no penalty to them for doing so.

ERISA’s sweeping unfairness as applied in practice is mind boggling. A law that was created to protect employees has been turned upside down, and now, often has the opposite effect. An attorney must have an understanding of the remedies that are not available under ERISA, as well as the unusual procedural aspects of ERISA, to ensure their client’s well-being.

Congress passed ERISA, after a decade long study, and negotiation to protect the “interest of participants in employee benefit plans . . . by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). The language of the ERISA statute draws heavily from trust law as well as contract law. Congress instructed the Federal Courts to develop a common law of ERISA, using both trust and contract principals. The Department of Labor also has authority to issue regulations governing the processing of ERISA claims.

In a number of seminal ERISA decisions, the Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the purpose behind ERISA, protection of employees, and then has proceeded to gut the rights of employees and other beneficiaries. In a recent major ERISA decision, Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), the Supreme Court sided with the HMO industry, rather than patients and their doctors, by concluding that ERISA pre-empted state laws aimed at righting wrongs perpetrated by HMOs.

An "employee benefit plan" is defined as including an "employee welfare benefit plan" and an "employee pension benefit plan." ERISA § 3(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3). An "employee welfare benefit plan" is any "plan, fund or program" which is "established or maintained" by an "employer" or an "employee organization" (union, etc.) or both for the purpose of providing, either directly or through the purchase of insurance, benefits such as medical, dental, disability, vacation, apprenticeship, etc. ERISA § 3(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). By regulation, severance pay arrangements may also constitute welfare benefit plans (rather than pension benefit plans). ERISA § 3(2)(b)(i), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(b)(i).

ERISA contains one of the broadest preemption clauses ever enacted by Congress. The application of which has been repeatedly referred to by the Supreme Court, a “‘comprehensive and reticulated statute,' the product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation's private employee benefit system," Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 251, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993), effects almost all aspects of the employer-employee relationship in the private sector. Its sweep effects the payment of disability benefits to injured workers, whether in the form of a single payment, or periodic payments.

ERISA’s pre-emption clause provides that ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan …” ERISA § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). "State laws” are not merely state statutes, but "[all laws, decisions, rules, regulations or other State action having the effect of law. . . ." ERISA §514(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. §1144(c)(1). This provision evinces a congressional intent to allow states to continue their historic role regulating insurance despite ERISA's broadly preemptive effect.

The ERISA “saving clause” then provides that some state laws are not preempted: “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A).

For a state law to survive preemption by ERISA, the state law must be one that regulates insurance. As opposed to a state laws of general application that have some bearing on insurers. Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329, 123 S.Ct. 1471 (2003), citing ERISA, § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(b)(2)(A). In order for a state law to survive ERISA preemption as a law regulating insurance, “it must satisfy two requirements. First, the state law must be specifically directed toward entities engaged in insurance. . . Second, as explained above, the state law must substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and the insured.” Kentucky Ass’n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. at 342 (2003). The risk pooling analysis is relatively easy to meet.

At the same time as to what ERISA gobbles up, ERISA also leaves alone. The “deemer clause” provides for purposes of the savings clause, an ERISA plan may not be deemed to be an insurance company or to be engaged in the business of insurance. ERISA § 514(b)(2)(B). The deemer clause bars states from regulating forbids state insurance regulation of uninsured or self-funded plans.

B.  Overview of STD Plans and LTD Plans.

STD policies or plans are called “short-term” disability policies or plans, because the coverage is often for 3 months or 6 months, but sometimes as along as 1 year. The definition of “disability” under an STD plan typically requires that a person only be unable to perform his or her own occupation; thus, if a person is hurt on the job, and has a workers’ compensation claim for the time that person cannot perform his or her own occupation, the injured worker may also be eligible for STD benefits. Many STD disability policies exclude injuries or sicknesses that are work related. More about collecting STD benefits and workers’ compensation benefits may be found below.

Not all insurance provided to employees fall under ERISA. The Secretary of Labor regulation found at 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-1(j), clarifies that certain insurance policies that are made available at work are not ERISA benefits. This is often referred to as the “safe harbor” provisions of ERISA. See, e.g. Anderson v. Unum Provident Corporation, 369 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004); compare Gross v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 734 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2013) (holding a package of benefits offered by an employer was a unitary plan, all benefits fell under ERISA). The regulations explain that the definition of a “welfare plan,” shall not include a group or group-type insurance program offered by an

insurer to employees or members of an employee organization, under which

(1) No contributions are made by an employer or employee organization;

(2) Participation the program is completely voluntary for employees or members;

(3) The sole functions of the employer or employee organization with respect to the program are, without endorsing the program, to permit the insurer to publicize the program to employees or members, to collect premiums through payroll deductions or dues checkoffs and to remit them to the insurer; and

(4) The employer or employee organization receives no consideration in the form of cash or otherwise in connection with the program, other than reasonable compensation, excluding any profit, for administrative services actually rendered in connection with payroll deductions or dues checkoff

In practice this means that some STD benefit plans can escape ERISA. The unfairly treated employee may have recourse under a state Wage Act statute, or for a breach of contract claim.

LTD benefits under an LTD Plan may replace a portion of a person’s income if the person is disabled and unable to work; however, LTD benefits, by definition, last longer. LTD benefits are of two types: either pure income replacement, or occupationally governed. Typically, LTD benefits do not start until the person has been disabled through an elimination period that is often six months, but can be as short as three months or as long as twelve. Usually LTD benefits follow a period of STD benefits. LTD benefits usually provide benefits up to age 65, or, in some policies, up to the “normal retirement age” under the Social Security Act. Most often the definition of disability changes after 24-months from the employee’s “own occupation” to “any occupation,” which is based on the employee’s education, training and experience. This definition is not nearly as narrow as the Social Security Administration definition of disability, which focuses on an inability to earn an income from “any gainful employment.”

II.  Introduction to the Coordination of Benefits Problem

Under a typical ERISA governed LTD plan, workers’ compensation, Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) (both primary and dependent), pension and often severance benefits as well as, on occasions, veteran’s and salary continuation benefits, are usually treated as “offsets” or “other income” and used as a means to reduce benefit payments otherwise payable under the insurance policy or plan. Third party settlements may also be considered an offset. The injured person’s attorney must review at the outset the specific policy language in the disability insurance plan or policy and devise a permissible method for assuring that the client’s interest are appropriately protected. Of particular concern to employment lawyers are plans that treat payments from employers, such as discrimination settlements or severance payments as “offsets.”

It is essential to review the actual policy language in the insurance policy or the plan. Reliance on the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) or Certificate Booklet is ill advised. The Plan documents tend to exclusively govern although inconsistencies with the SPD sometimes (depends on the Circuit) will ultimately control.

The problem faced by the injured person is easily understood by actual example. The following is policy language contained in a typical long term disability policy written by the world’s largest disability insurer:

MONTHLY BENEFIT

To figure the amount of monthly benefit:

1. Multiply the Insured's basic monthly earnings by the benefit percent-

age shown in the policy specifications.

2. Take the lesser of the amount:

a. determined in step (1) above; or

b, of the maximum monthly benefit shown in the policy specifications; and

3. Deduct other income benefits, shown below, from this amount.

But, if the insured is earning more than 20% of his Indexed pre-disability earnings in his regular occupation or another occupation, the following formula will be used to figure the monthly benefit.

(A divided by B) x C

A = The insured's "indexed pre-disability earnings" minus the insured's

monthly earnings received while he is disabled.

B = The insured's "indexed pre-disability earnings".

C = The benefit as figured above.

The benefit payable will never be less than the minimum monthly benefit shown in the policy specifications.

OTHER INCOME BENEFITS

Other income benefits means those benefits as follows.

1. The amount for which the insured is eligible under:

a. Workers' or Workmen's Compensation Law;

b. occupational disease law; or

c. any other act or law of like intent.

2. The amount of any disability income benefits for which the insured is

eligible under any compulsory benefit act or law.

3. Payment from your employer as part of a termination or severance

agreement.

Number 3 is not in the world’s largest disability insurance plan, but appears in a top ten insurance company’s typical LTD Benefits insurance policy.

For purposes of illustration, assume that John Doe earns $96,000.00 per year, or $8,000.00 per month. Let’s make John Doe a salaried truck driver. He is injured in a car crash. He is out of work. He incurs $50,000 in medical bills that are covered by his worker’s compensation carrier. John Doe’s wife is so upset, she needs and seeks counseling. She incurs $15,000 in mental health care bills. John Doe’s employer’s health plan pays the counseling costs.

Assume that Mr. Doe’s disability plan pays to him 60% of his base monthly earnings - $8,000.00 * .60 = $4,800.00 per month. Now assume that Mr. Doe receives workers’ compensation payments of $1,000 per week. Under the above scenario, Mr. Doe’s “offsets” will gobble up most of his monthly disability payment $1,000 x 4.3 = $4,300, leaving him with an LTD payment of $500 per month. Most plans pay a $100 minimum. If Mr. Doe qualifies and receives SSDI payments, his payment under the long term disability plan will be further eroded, leaving him with the monthly minimum benefit.